Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

Sunday

I was listening to the BBC Sunday programme this morning. There were a couple of pieces I found of interest, an interview by Hans Kung and a feature on the Anglican's troubles.

Hans Kung's concern was Papal Infallibility. Why this should be I do not know. In short, the dogma, was defined by the First Vatican Council in 1870, and applies when the Pope makes an ex-cathedra statement on a matter of Dogma. There has only ever been one such statement, made by Pope Pius XII in 1950, which defined the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary as an article of faith.

There was never any possibility that Humanae Vitae, which Kung referred to, could have been an article of faith. This is of course not to say that anything said by the Pope is not to be regarded as important. The long term consequences of easy contraception still have to be evaluated as they have had dramatic consequences for society. It will take at least another 50 years before the full effects can be judged. Certainly in Sweden, society has been transformed in ways good and bad. One consequence is that immigrants have had to be allowed in quite freely just to keep up the numbers, to the extent that the population is now about 15% immigrant.

Kung also referred to the authoritarian government of the church. The church organisation is a very flat hierarchy - pope, bishops and priests. In my experience the problems do not originate with Rome but with the bishops, and parish clergy when they fail to carry out the instructions of Rome and just do the job they are there to do. Authority is often not exercised when it needs to be. The authority of Rome is the source of the rights of ordinary Catholics.

The other feature was on the Church of England and its troubles over female clergy. There is talk of bishops wanting to "go over" to Rome.

The Church of England would not exist were it not for Henry VIII wanting to get his divorce. Theologically, it is a lash-up. It is painful to watch, but to anyone in it wanting to go over to Rome it should be made clear that the way is open to them as an individual, just as it is to anyone else. And that an objection to women clergy is not of itself a reason for becoming a member of the Catholic church.

Since the Anglican church has a different understanding of priesthood from that in the Catholic and Orthodox churches, there should be no objection to female priests in their communion. Those who share the Catholic view of priesthood should sort out their position and seek admission if that is what they want. But they need to do it as individuals and not expect to take other people with them.

Kommentarer

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

Importing people to sustain demand

I got involved in a discussion with a Youtuber called “Philosophy all along”. This was in connection with criticism of Trump’s policy of deporting illegal migrants, which he argued would be bad for the economy as it would reduce demand. This implies that there is a need to import people to sustain demand. There is no obvious reason why a population should not be able to consume everything that the same population produces. If it can not, then something else is going on. It is a basic principle that wages are the least that workers will accept to do a job. Wages are a share of the value added by workers through their wages. The remainder is distributed as economic rent, after government has taken its cut in taxes. Monopoly profit is a temporary surplus that after a delay gets absorbed into economic rent. Land values in Silicon Valley are an example of this; it's like a gold rush. The miners get little out of it. Rent and tax syphon purchasing power away from those who produce the g...

The dreadfulness of British governance

I wrote to my MP on two entirely separate issues recently. The first was to do with the replacement for the Inter City 125 train, which at £2.6 million per vehicle, is twice as expensive as it ought to be. The second concerned the benefits of a switch from business rate and Council Tax to a tax based on site values. In both cases, the replies were full of spurious, unsubstantiated assertions and completely flawed arguments. This is typical. You will not get an iota of sense from the government on any area of public policy at all - finance, economics, trade and employment, agriculture, housing, health, transport, energy. All junk. If you write to your MP you will invariably receive answers that are an insult to your intelligence, no matter what subject you are writing about. Of course they cannot understand statistics. They are innumerate. Whitehall is staffed with idiots with a high IQ. Look at their IT projects. And mind your purse, they will have that too.

How much more will the British tolerate?

The British are phlegmatic, tolerant and slow to rouse. Thus there was no great reaction after the terrorist attack in July 2005. The murder of Lee Rigby created a sense of outrage, but nothing more, since it appeared to be an isolated incident. Two serious incidents within a fortnight are another matter. Since the first major terrorist incident in 2001, authority has tried to persuade the public that Islam is a religion of peace, that these were isolated events, or the actions of deranged "lone wolves", having nothing to do with Islam, or to reassure that the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack were infinitesimally small. These assurances are are beginning to wear thin. They no longer convince. If government does not act effectively, people will take the law into their own hands. What, however, would effective action look like? What sort of effective action would not amount to rough justice for a lot of innocent people? Given the difficulties of keeping large n...